USGS Science⌕ Search

SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Technical Memorandum”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

35 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
USGS2008

An exploration of Bureau of Reclamation approaches for managing conflict over diverging science

As a major institutional agent supplying Western water resources, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) provides important leadership, technical, and financial resources in water management, serving as the West's "water broker" (Bowersox 2000; Pisani 2003). In recent years, growing numbers of constituencies using water and the over-allocation of water resources have contributed to conflict over the resource in the American West (National Research Council 2004). Although the conflicts arise from many sources, one common theme is that Reclamation managers often must make decisions about water use and allocation when scientific studies provide uncertain or competing recommendations. We conducted a preliminary study of Reclamation water managers and water scientists to try to understand the approaches or techniques they use or consider useful for dealing with scientific conflicts over water allocation and how these compare to techniques found in the relevant literature. We report the results of (1) an electronic survey of Reclamation senior managers and (2) a panel discussion amongst Reclamation senior managers as to the current institutional capabilities for managing diverging scientific findings in water dispute resolution processes. We conclude with a discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of the different tools and techniques managers reported in the survey and in the panel discussion.

Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2015

Population connectivity of deep-sea corals

Identifying the scale of dispersal among habitats has been a challenge in marine ecology for decades (Grantham et al., 2003; Kinlan & Gaines, 2003; Hixon, 2011). Unlike terrestrial habitats in which barriers to dispersal may be obvious (e.g. mountain ranges, rivers), few absolute barriers to dispersal are recognizable in the sea. Additionally, most marine species have complex life cycles in which juveniles are more mobile than adults. As such, the dynamics of populations may involve processes in distant habitats that are coupled by a transport mechanism. Studies of population connectivity try to quantify the transport, or dispersal of individuals, among geographically separated populations. For benthic marine species, such as corals and demersal fishes, colonization of new populations occurs primarily by dispersal of larvae (Figure 1; Shank, 2010). Successful dispersal and recruitment, followed by maturation and reproduction of these new migrants ensures individuals contribute to the gene pool (Hedgecock, 2007). Thus, successful dispersal links and cohesively maintains spatially separated sub-populations. At shorter time scales (10-100s years), connectivity regulates community structure by influencing the genetic composition, diversity and demographic stability of the population, whereas at longer time scales (1000s years), geographic distributions are affected (McClain and Hardy, 2010). Alternatively, populations may become extinct or speciation may occur if connectivity ceases (Cowen et al., 2007). Therefore, the genetic exchange of individuals between populations is fundamental to the short-term resilience and long-term maintenance of the species. However, for the vast majority of marine species, population connectivity remains poorly understood.

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2005

Coral disease and health workshop: Coral histopathology II, July 12-14, 2005

The health and continued existence of coral reef ecosystems are threatened by an increasing array of environmental and anthropogenic impacts. Coral disease is one of the prominent causes of increased mortality among reefs globally, particularly in the Caribbean. Although over 40 different coral diseases and syndromes have been reported worldwide, only a few etiological agents have been confirmed; most pathogens remain unknown and the dynamics of disease transmission, pathogenicity and mortality are not understood. Causal relationships have been documented for only a few of the coral diseases, while new syndromes continue to emerge. Extensive field observations by coral biologists have provided substantial documentation of a plethora of new pathologies, but our understanding, however, has been limited to descriptions of gross lesions with names reflecting these observations (e.g., black band, white band, dark spot). To determine etiology, we must equip coral diseases scientists with basic biomedical knowledge and specialized training in areas such as histology, cell biology and pathology. Only through combining descriptive science with mechanistic science and employing the synthesis epizootiology provides will we be able to gain insight into causation and become equipped to handle the pending crisis. One of the critical challenges faced by coral disease researchers is to establish a framework to systematically study coral pathologies drawing from the field of diagnostic medicine and pathology and using generally accepted nomenclature. This process began in April 2004, with a workshop titled Coral Disease and Health Workshop: Developing Diagnostic Criteria co-convened by the Coral Disease and Health Consortium (CDHC), a working group organized under the auspices of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force, and the International Registry for Coral Pathology (IRCP). The workshop was hosted by the U.S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) in Madison, Wisconsin and was focused on gross morphology and disease signs observed in the field. A resounding recommendation from the histopathologists participating in the workshop was the urgent need to develop diagnostic criteria that are suitable to move from gross observations to morphological diagnoses based on evaluation of microscopic anatomy. As a continuation of building the foundation and framework for coral disease diagnostics, the CDHC convened the Coral Disease and Health Workshop: Coral Histopathology II in Charleston, South Carolina, July 11-14, 2005. The workshop was hosted by the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine at the Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC which provided expertise, facilities and equipment in support of the workshop. All of the histological slides and related photographs used in the discussions were prepared and supplied by the IRCP. This workshop brought together 15 experts in veterinary and medical pathology and coral biology from national and international research institutes and government laboratories. The mission was to devise a standardized approach to examining microscopic anatomy and pathology of corals and a standardized nomenclature to facilitate accurate descriptions of the microscopic morphology of corals and enhance communication among specialists investigating causes of coral death. 2 The participants of this workshop deliberated for 3 days to refine the nomenclature for gross and microscopic anatomy of corals and systematically described microscopic changes associated with selected coral diseases. The findings and recommendations from the deliberations will be submitted to the research community for peer review. The standardized nomenclature and descriptions produced at this workshop will ultimately be made available to the scientific community through a variety of media including the World Wide Web. An exciting highlight of this meeting was provided by Professor Robert Ogilvie (MUSC Department of Cell Biology and Anatomy) when he introduced participants to a new digital technology that is revolutionizing histology and histopathology in the medical field. The Virtual Slide technology creates digital images of histological tissue sections by computer scanning actual slides in high definition and storing the images for retrieval and viewing. Virtual slides now allow any investigator with access to a computer and the web to view, search, annotate and comment on the same tissue sections in real time. Medical and veterinary slide libraries across the country are being converted into virtual slides to enhance biomedical education, research and diagnosis. The coral health and disease researchers at this workshop deem virtual slides as a significant way to increase capabilities in coral histology and a means for pathology consultations on coral disease cases on a global scale.

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2010

Resolving disputes over science in natural resource agency decisionmaking

Natural resource agencies make decisions involving public resources in which the public, by definition, have a stake. These resources are often finite. Thus, different viewpoints, interests, or beliefs may conflict when parties are perceived to be interdependent or one party is perceived to block or oppose other parties' use of a scarce resource. These confl icts may occur regard less of whether there are any real differences between the parties or whether one party's actions actually affect the other (Thomas 1992; Robbins 1994; Appelbaum et al. 1999). Conflicts are defined here as "a process of social interaction involving a struggle over claims to resources, power and status, beliefs, and other preferences and desires" (Appelbaum et al. 1999, 63). Such conflicts can occur at multiple stages or levels of decisionmaking and can be embedded within other conflicts.

Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2017

Deep-sea coral research and technology program: Alaska deep-sea coral and sponge initiative final report

Deep-sea coral and sponge ecosystems are widespread throughout most of Alaska’s marine waters. In some places, such as the central and western Aleutian Islands, deep-sea coral and sponge resources can be extremely diverse and may rank among the most abundant deep-sea coral and sponge communities in the world. Many different species of fishes and invertebrates are associated with deep-sea coral and sponge communities in Alaska. Because of their biology, these benthic invertebrates are potentially impacted by climate change and ocean acidification. Deepsea coral and sponge ecosystems are also vulnerable to the effects of commercial fishing activities. Because of the size and scope of Alaska’s continental shelf and slope, the vast majority of the area has not been visually surveyed for deep-sea corals and sponges. NOAA’s Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program (DSCRTP) sponsored a field research program in the Alaska region between 2012–2015, referred to hereafter as the Alaska Initiative. The priorities for Alaska were derived from ongoing data needs and objectives identified by the DSCRTP, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (NPFMC), and Essential Fish Habitat-Environmental Impact Statement (EFH-EIS) process. This report presents the results of 15 projects conducted using DSCRTP funds from 2012-2015. Three of the projects conducted as part of the Alaska deep-sea coral and sponge initiative included dedicated at-sea cruises and fieldwork spread across multiple years. These projects were the eastern Gulf of Alaska Primnoa pacifica study, the Aleutian Islands mapping study, and the Gulf of Alaska fish productivity study. In all, there were nine separate research cruises carried out with a total of 109 at-sea days conducting research. The remaining projects either used data and samples collected by the three major fieldwork projects or were piggy-backed onto existing research programs at the Alaska Fisheries Science Center (AFSC).

NOAA Technical Memorandum↗
USGS2019

Report of the technical expert workshop: Developing recommendations for field response, captive management, and rehabilitation of sea turtles with fibropapillomatosis

Fibropapillomatosis (FP) is a disease of sea turtles that primarily manifests as tumors of the skin. Strandings of green turtles with this disease have dramatically increased in the Southeast U.S. over the last decade, necessitating a review of various practices related to the capture, handling, and treatment of afflicted turtles. NOAA and USFWS hosted a workshop in St. Petersburg, Florida on September 6, 2017 to seek input on the development of recommendations to address the following key issues regarding green turtles with FP: 1) disposition when encountered under various circumstances (e.g., strandings, research activities, incidental capture, opportunistic observations); 2) rehabilitation and release; 3) response options if rehabilitation capacity is exceeded; and 4) biosecurity measures to prevent anthropogenic spread of the disease. Federal and state resource agency staff and rehabilitation veterinarians were invited to this workshop to provide input for these recommendations. A review of rehabilitation practices and outcome was shared with participants to inform discussions related to rehabilitation and stranding response. Draft recommendations were prepared for the meeting and participants were asked to share their opinions during moderated discussions and via a written feedback instrument. This input was considered and applied to amend the recommendations, which were also peer-reviewed by six additional veterinarians and a stranding biologist with expertise in sea turtles,rehabilitation medicine, and fibropapillomatosis. The intended use for the completed Fibropapillomatosis and Sea Turtles: Recommendations for Field Response, Captive Management, and Rehabilitation is to assist resource agencies with management planning and decisions related to green turtles with FP and to inform relevant aspects of policy, permits, and authorizations under federal and state regulations.

Florida↗
USGS2020

North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) scenario planning summary report

Scenario planning provides a structured framework that can be used in strategic planning to help manage risk and prioritize actions (Schwartz 1996; Peterson et al. 2003). By providing a mechanism to communicate about complex situations, scenario planning encourages “out-of-the-box” thinking to help groups assess the impacts of plausible future scenarios on a target or resource. The outcomes from scenario planning can be used to improve management decisions, highlight data gaps, and/or identify future science priorities (Star et al. 2015; Borggaard et al. 2019). The application of scenario planning by resource management organizations (e.g., Borggaard et al. 2019; Runyon et al. 2020; Star et al. 2015) and the urgency surrounding the recovery of the critically endangered North Atlantic right whale (Eubalaena glacialis), led to a 2018 NOAA Fisheries scenario planning initiative for the species. In addition to complementing the many management and conservation efforts already underway, this initiative was designed to address the uncertainties around future anthropogenic and environmental changes and how these uncertainties may impact species recovery. We used a scenario planning framework to explore plausible future conditions for North Atlantic right whales and to develop possible options to address those conditions and improve recovery. Specific objectives were to: 1) better understand the challenges of right whale management in a changing climate; 2) identify potential research activities and recovery needs across the species’ range; 3) increase coordination and collaboration related to recovery efforts; and 4) explore how scenario planning can be used to support decisions. Using projected changes in ocean conditions coupled with anthropogenic stressors, we built four plausible future scenarios for right whales. These scenarios helped identify priority research and management actions that NOAA Fisheries and our partners can undertake to improve right whale recovery. We identified priority actions related to science, management, and partnerships including, but not limited to, 1) research on shifting spatial and temporal distributions of right whales and prey in a changing climate; 2) development of technology to further reduce impacts from human activities; 3) continuation of ongoing management efforts related to vessel traffic and fishing; and 4) continued maintenance of existing and development of new partnerships (e.g., industry engagement in problem solving). This scenario planning exercise helped prioritize North Atlantic right whale management and science needs in light of changing ocean conditions and anthropogenic impacts. It can also serve as a reference for how NOAA Fisheries and its partners can better prepare for multiple plausible futures while complementing other on-going initiatives. Priorities identified here can be considered in conjunction with implementation and monitoring actions such as with the Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Team (ALWTRT) and/or regional Right Whale U.S. Implementation Teams. The framework can also be repeated and improved upon as additional information becomes available to support future exercises.

Technical Memorandum↗
USGS1955

U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports through 1954

This report supersedes TEI-400, "U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports through 1953." Part I is a numerical list of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Investigations and Memorandum reports. This part lists not only reports (followed by a date) that have been transmitted to the U.S> Atomic Energy Commission, but also reports in preparation (followed by an asterisk) for which tentative titles were available on December 31, 1954. If a report, or portion of a report, has been published, the fact is indicated by the abbreviation of the medium of publication. (See also Part II.) Part II is a reference guide to Trace Elements and related reports that are available to the public (this part supersedes Part I of Bulletin 1019-B). These reports are grouped according to the type of publication or release. If a report, or portion of the report, has been published in more than one form, appropriate cross-references are given to indicate the other forms of publication. Abstracts published in Nuclear Science Abstracts are not included in Part II; however, if the abstract of a Trace Elements report has been published in NSA, the fact is indicated in Part I. Publications in process on December 31, 1954, are designated by an asterisk. Part III is a finding list of states, areas, and subjects and supersedes Part II of Bulletin 1019-B. It is based on information derived mostly from the titles of reports and, where titles are of general nature, from a cursory review of the reports. This list is not a complete index of the information given in Trace Elements and related reports, but is designed to find subjects of major interest, Because of the numerous entries for Colorado and Utah, information has been listed by counties and, where possible, by subject under these states. Other states have county listings only if a county is included in the title of a report; otherwise, area may be listed separately under the state. Major subjects are listed separately in the index and also, where appropriate under states. Analytical methods and subjects related to analytical research are listed under Analytical Methods and Research, but not separately throughout the index. Most mineralogic studies are included under the heading Mineralogy, but are not necessarily listed according to location. Part IV is an author index. The words “with” and “and” are used to indicate seniority of authorship. For example, a listing of Smith and Brown indicated that Smith is the senior author. A listing of Smith with Brown indicates that Brown is the senior author. In both parts III and IV all Trace Elements reports are listed, as well as other related reports that have not been issued as Trace Elements reports. The following abbreviations have been used: TEI, Trace Elements Investigations report; TEM, Trace Elements Memorandum report; OF, open file; TIS, Technical Information Service release; C, Circular; B, Bulletin; P, Professional Paper; MC, Maps and Charts; J, Journal; and NSA, Nuclear Science Abstracts.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS1954

U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports through 1953

This report combines and brings up-to-date the information previously given in Trace Elements Investigations Report 325, "Numerical list of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Reports to April 30, 1953," and Trace Elements Investigations Report 301, "Topical index and bibliography of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements and related reports." Part I is a numerical list of U.S. Geological Survey Trace Elements Investigations and Memorandum reports. It supersedes TEI-325. This part lists not only reports (followed by a date) that have been transmitted to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, but also reports in preparation (followed by an asterisk) for which tentative titles were available on December 31, 1953. Reports that have been published are indicated by the abbreviation of the medium of publication. (See also part II.) Part II is a reference guide to Trace Elements and related reports that are available to the public; this part supersedes Part 2 of the TEI-301 (published as Geological survey Circular 281). These reports are grouped according to the type of publication or release. Abstracts published in Nuclear Science Abstracts are not included in Part II, although certain TEI and TEM reports, the abstracts of which have been published in NSA, are so indicated in Part I. Publications in process on December 31, 1953, are designated by an asterisk. Part III is a finding list of states, areas, and subjects. It is based on information derived mostly from the titles of reports and, where titles are of a general nature, from a cursory review of the reports. This list is not a complete index of the information given in Trace Elements and related reports, but is designed to find subjects of major interest. Because of the numerous entries for Colorado and Utah, information has been listed by counties and, where possible, by subject under these states. Other states have county listings only if a county is included in the title of a report; otherwise, areas may be listed separately under the state. Major subjects are listed separately in the index and also where appropriate under states. Analytical methods and subjects related to analytical research are listed under Analytical Methods and Research, but not separately throughout the index. Most mineralogic studies are included under the heading Mineralogy, but are not necessarily listed according to location. Part IV is a finding list of authors. The words “with” and “and” are used to indicate seniority of authorship. For example, a listing of Jones and Brown indicates that Jones is the senior author. A listing of Jones with Brown indicates that Brown is the senior author. In both parts III and IV all Trace Elements reports are listed, as well as other related reports that have not been issued as Trace Elements reports. The following standard abbreviations have been used: TEI, Trace Elements Investigations report; TEM, Trace Elements Memorandum report; P, Professional Paper; B, Bulletin; C, Circular; J, Journal; OF, open file; TIS, Technical Information Service release; NSA, Nuclear Science Abstracts; QM, Quadrangle Map Series; and OM, Oil and Gas map or Mineral Investigations map or report.

Trace Elements Investigations↗
USGS1996

Joint US Geological Survey, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission workshop on research related to low-level radioactive waste disposal, May 4-6, 1993, National Center, Reston, Virginia; Proceedings

This report contains papers presented at the "Joint U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Technical Workshop on Research Related to Low-Level Radioactive Waste (LLW) Disposal" that was held at the USGS National Center Auditorium, Reston, Virginia, May 4-6, 1993. The objective of the workshop was to provide a forum for exchange of information, ideas, and technology in the geosciences dealing with LLW disposal. This workshop was the first joint activity under the Memorandum of Understanding between the USGS and NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research signed in April 1992. Participants included invited speakers from the USGS, NRC technical contractors (U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) National Laboratories and universities) and NRC staff for presentation of research study results related to LLW disposal. Also in attendance were scientists from the DOE, DOE National Laboratories, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, State developmental and regulatory agencies involved in LLW disposal facility siting and licensing, Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL), private industry, Agricultural Research Service, universities, USGS and NRC.

Water-Resources Investigations Report↗
USGS2015

Final project memorandum: sea-level rise modeling handbook: resource guide for resource managers, engineers, and scientists

Coastal wetlands of the Southeastern United States are undergoing retreat and migration from increasing tidal inundation and saltwater intrusion attributed to climate variability and sea-level rise. Much of the literature describing potential sea-level rise projections and modeling predictions are found in peer-reviewed academic journals or government technical reports largely suited to reading by other Ph.D. scientists who are more familiar or engaged in the climate change debate. Various sea-level rise and coastal wetland models have been developed and applied of different designs and scales of spatial and temporal complexity for predicting habitat and environmental change that have not heretofore been synthesized to aid natural resource managers of their utility and limitations. Training sessions were conducted with Federal land managers with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, and NOAA National Estuarine Research Reserves as well as state partners and nongovernmental organizations across the northern Gulf Coast from Florida to Texas to educate and to evaluate user needs and understanding of concepts, data, and modeling tools for projecting sea-level rise and its impact on coastal habitats and wildlife. As a result, this handbook was constructed from these training and feedback sessions with coastal managers and biologists of published decision-support tools and simulation models for sea-level rise and climate change assessments. A simplified tabular context was developed listing the various kinds of decision-support tools and ecological models along with criteria to distinguish the source, scale, and quality of information input and geographic data sets, physical and biological constraints and relationships, datum characteristics of water and land elevation components, utility options for setting sea-level rise and climate change scenarios, and ease or difficulty of storing, displaying, or interpreting model output. The handbook is designed to be a primer to understanding sea-level rise and a practical synthesis of the current state of knowledge and modeling tools as a resource guide for DOl land management needs and facilitating Landscape Conservation Cooperative (LCC) research and conservation initiatives.

Conference Paper↗
USGS2013

Measuring discharge with acoustic Doppler current profilers from a moving boat

The use of acoustic Doppler current profilers (ADCPs) from a moving boat is now a commonly used method for measuring streamflow. The technology and methods for making ADCP-based discharge measurements are different from the technology and methods used to make traditional discharge measurements with mechanical meters. Although the ADCP is a valuable tool for measuring streamflow, it is only accurate when used with appropriate techniques. This report presents guidance on the use of ADCPs for measuring streamflow; this guidance is based on the experience of U.S. Geological Survey employees and published reports, papers, and memorandums of the U.S. Geological Survey. The guidance is presented in a logical progression, from predeployment planning, to field data collection, and finally to post processing of the collected data. Acoustic Doppler technology and the instruments currently (2013) available also are discussed to highlight the advantages and limitations of the technology. More in-depth, technical explanations of how an ADCP measures streamflow and what to do when measuring in moving-bed conditions are presented in the appendixes. ADCP users need to know the proper procedures for measuring discharge from a moving boat and why those procedures are required, so that when the user encounters unusual field conditions, the procedures can be adapted without sacrificing the accuracy of the streamflow-measurement data.

Techniques and Methods↗
USGS2022

Five years of monitoring a bio-engineered living shoreline: Comparison of oyster population development by reef technology.

The Living Shoreline Demonstration Project (PO-148) used five bio-engineered reef technologies (Reef Balls in two configurations; Figure 1) acting as breakwaters to protect vulnerable shorelines. While the primary goal is to attenuate wave energy, the sustainability and success of these products as “living” shorelines are based on their ability to enhance oyster habitat, enabling the reef to maintain elevation within the rapidly changing environment (i.e., sea level rise, subsidence). This report documents the recruitment, survival, and growth of the living components of the reef – oysters and other encrusting organisms (e.g. mussels, barnacles). This final technical report provides data from five years of monitoring (November 2017 – December 2021) of reefs located along the western side of Eloi Bay in Pontchartrain Basin (Figure 2). Monitoring goals included assessment of (1) annual oyster densities and population dynamics on the reefs, (2) annual density and diversity of other encrusting organisms, and (3) comparisons of outcomes by reef technology, exposure, and water quality. Detailed information on technologies used, construction design, as-built elevations are available in Coast & Harbor Engineering (2016) Design Memorandum dated March 25, 2016, submitted to Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority.

Louisiana↗
USGS2015

2014-2015 Partnership accomplishments report on joint activities: National Gap Analysis Program and LANDFIRE

The intended target audience for this document initially is management and project technical specialist and scientists involved in the Gap Analysis Program (GAP) and the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools - (LANDFIRE) program to help communicate coordination activities to all involved parties. This document is also intended to give background information in other parts of the USGS and beyond, although some details given are relatively oriented to management of the respective programs. Because the Gap Analysis Program (GAP) and the Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools - LANDFIRE programs both rely on characterizations of land cover using similar scales and resolutions, the programs have been coordinating their work to improve scientific consistency and efficiency of production. Initial discussions and informal sharing of ideas and work began in 2008. Although this collaboration was fruitful, there was no formal process for reporting results, plans, or outstanding issues, nor was there any formally-defined coordinated management team that spanned the two programs. In 2012, leadership from the two programs agreed to strengthen the coordination of their respective work efforts. In 2013 the GAP and LANDFIRE programs developed an umbrella plan of objectives and components related to three mutual focus areas for the GAP and LANDFIRE collaboration for the years 2013 and 2014 (GAP/LANDFIRE 2013). The evolution of this partnership resulted in the drafting of an inter-program Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in 2014. This MOU identified three coordination topics relevant to the two programs participating at this point in the MOU history: Vegetation mapping Disturbance classes Formal quality assessment

Report↗